Democrat or Republican – They All Attempt to Violate our Rights

This is just one more example of the genius and prescience of the founders. Just where would be without the Bill of Rights?

from the Federalist:

DOJ Lawsuit Demands Names Of All People Who Use This App For Their Gun

Creeping government control is nothing new, but the DOJ’s recent disregard for the Second and Fourth Amendments shows old protections against abuses of power will wear thin without public vigilance.

The Bill of Rights was written for a reason. As the government attempts to violate the rights protected in it in new and different ways, it gives us more reasons to be thankful for its authors’ wisdom.

Last week, we saw another example of this as the Department of Justice (DOJ) tried to violate the Fourth Amendment while stepping on the Second Amendment by demanding that the manufacturer of a rifle scope give the department the names of everyone who downloaded an app connected with the product. Correctly, the manufacturer has refused to do so.

The story almost did not make it into the news: DOJ’s order was supposed to have been sealed, but Thomas Brewster, a cybersecurity reporter for Forbes, was able to view a copy before it was concealed. His story on the DOJ request shed some light on the heavy-handed tactics the government uses in secret to violate the people’s constitutionally protected civil rights. That the order was almost kept hidden from the public also raises the question of how often this has happened before and how many companies have given the feds what they’ve demanded.

The DOJ Is Violating the Bill of Rights

The company in question, American Technologies Network (ATN), manufactures scopes and has developed the Obsidian 4 app. The app allows users to connect the scopes to their phone to better calibrate them. It also allows them to record video and to livestream the view.

Nothing about this violates any federal or state law, and the product is popular. It had more than 10,000 downloads when the story broke last week, and according to the reviews on Google Play, many more people have since downloaded it in protest.

The government’s interest in the app comes because of its investigation into the suspected exporting of the scope to foreign countries. Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the government requires licenses to export arms, which presumably includes accessory items such as scopes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the State and Commerce Departments have some overlapping jurisdiction, depending on the type of weapon. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seems to be the lead agency on this particular action, as a part of its larger “Project Shield America” initiative.

Read more

The Left’s Bill of Wrongs

by: Brent Smith

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The Atlantic wrote recently of, “an obscure New York City ordinance governing how firearms owners could—note the past tense—travel with their weapons.”

Under this law, “New Yorkers with a “premises” license had to keep their guns in their homes at all times, except when being taken to a licensed target-shooting facility for practice and training. But those facilities had to be in New York City itself. “Premises” licensees could not put their guns in their trunk and drive out of town for any reason—not to go to a gun range, not to compete in a shooting match, not to take the guns to a second home.”

A premises license? Well heck. If this isn’t unconstitutional, I frankly don’t know what is. Just where in the Second Amendment does it say anything about being forced to keep your guns at home at all times? Answer: NOWHERE!!

But as bad as this is, it is not my point.

The plantiffs, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, as well as the NRA, sued all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and much to most peoples’ surprise, they agreed to review the case. read more

Podcast – A Good Crisis is Tailor Made for a Gun Grab

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

The New Zealand Mosque shootings was a crisis, tailor made for a State crack down on freedom. But despite the gun grab in New Zealand, liberal politicians have insisted forever, that they don’t want to take away our guns here in the U.S.

But it’s just like socialism. Years ago, if someone on the right accused someone on the left of being a socialist, it would have sparked outrage. How dare we try to label them as socialist. They would say that we’re just fearmongering.

Now, not many years later, socialism has all but been entirely embraced by the left. I mean, they’ve always embraced it in some form. It’s just now they’re admitting to it, and no longer shy away from the “S” word. Socialism of course.

And like socialism, American gun-grabbers have begun to take the mask of reason off. However, the one thing standing in their way is the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is unique and superior to all others, and not subject to the crisis du jour.

Thank Heavens for that. read more

Without the Second Amendment, We Would be New Zealand

This is just one more demonstration of the sheer genius of our Founders. They understood human nature as few have. And thank God for George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and the anti-Federalists, who insisted that a Bill of Rights be added to our Constitution, for without it, we would be in the same predicament as are law-abiding New Zealand gun owners.

from Conservative Review:

New Zealand’s knee-jerk gun ban is EXACTLY why we have the Second Amendment

Thank goodness we have the Second Amendment. I say that a lot, but I’m especially grateful after seeing the latest news out of New Zealand.

Less than a week after the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand has moved to ban and confiscate semi-automatic long guns. read more

Liberal Commenter Insists the Left is NOT Out to Destroy Kavanaugh – Part Two

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The following is part two of a very lengthy comment someone sent me to a recent World Net Daily article I wrote.

I will not recap part one, although you may review it here.

Once again, my responses to the commenter are indented.

Commenter: Kavanaugh’s conservative views on abortion are not the only reason why the Democrats oppose him. He is an opponent of gay rights and a corporate shill who supports corporate greed over the rights of individual Americans.

Actually I’ve heard Kavanaugh speak of the Bill of Rights – of which he is a supporter. You know the Bill of Rights, which rather nicely delineates the rights of all Americans equally. It is the left who in fact specifies that we need special rights for “special” people or groups.

And yes, he supports corporate greed, as you put it, because he believes, like our silly Founding Fathers, that government should have little authority to regulate business … to death. read more

WND Exclusive – How the Founders Failed to Prevent Judicial Activism

Dan “bag-a-donuts” Bongino was filling in on the Mark Levin radio program this past Wednesday. For those unfamiliar, bag-a-donuts is Dan’s “catch phrase.” He uses it to describe the “everyman.”

I love this guy, because he is the everyman. He’s smart but plainspoken, like a lot of us.

He was speaking of his confusion regarding the left. They claim, he says, to be so concerned that if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade instantly will be overturned – like the next day or something.

And Dan asks, if the left really thinks abortion on demand is settled law, why should they worry? read more

WND Exclusive – Thank God for the Anti-Federalists

In an Oct. 24, 1787, letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison expressed that, “Col. [George] Mason left Philadelphia in an exceeding ill humor indeed. A number of little circumstances arising in part from the impatience which prevailed towards the close of the business, conspired to whet his acrimony. He returned to Virginia with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan if possible. He considers the want of a bill of rights as a fatal objection.”

At the Constitutional Convention, in mid-September 1787, committed Anti-Federalists George Mason and Eldridge Gerry failed to persuade any of their fellow delegates to preface the Constitution with a bill of rights.
read more

Video Podcast – Dick’s Caters to Those who Will Never Buy from Them

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Today I discuss the campaign by Dick’s Sporting Goods and its CEO Ed Stack to destroy or at least severely weaken their entire business – as they bow at the alter of leftist anti-gun nuts.

The company wide policy was/is to cease to sell semi-automatic rifles and accessories in any of their stores. The latest addition to this ridiculous policy is they now plan to destroy all the weapons and accessories they currently have in stock. Not give them to training facilities or anything reasonable. No – they are going to destroy them, and I’ll guarantee you the destruction will be on video, so that all the leftists who have never and will never shop at a Dick’s will applaud.

Yeah for Dick’s. But hey, as I explain – they are private company and can do what they want. – even ruin their business, forcing their employees into the unemployment line. read more

The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

First Draft of Original 17 Amendments

Scroll Down for Audio Version (YouTube or SoundCloud)

One of greater problems that plague our federal government is that of cross-delegation. What do I mean by this?

I describe this phenomenon as such, owing to the fact that three branches of government are no longer “separate but equal.” As we see by the take-over of government by the federal judiciary, they are clearly the most powerful of the three. The other two branches, the legislative and executive, take to bended knee before them, and as blind mutes, comply with any and every decree. This was clearly not intended by the founders.

However, this cross-delegation can more accurately be described not as a seizing of power and authority of one branch from another, but as a voluntary giving of authority of one branch to another. The legislative branch, devoid of backbone, consistently surrenders its constitutionally mandated authority to the executive branch, giving the President authority he is not entitled to. read more

WND Exclusive – Bill of Rights: 9 Apply to the Individual but 1 Does Not?

It recently dawned on me what should be the most obvious argument for the individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights is to protect the natural rights of the individual from an encroaching federal government function. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them.

In fact, each of the Bill of Rights’ 10 Amendments – there were originally 17 – states this by use of the words person, people, owner, or accused. The only two that do not expressly state the individual are the Seventh and Eighth. They do, however, use inference to make the point that both pertain to the individual. read more